A Book Recommendation

by Bruce Mills

I am reading a new book which was just published by Crossway at the end of November 2013 titled From Heaven He Came and Sought Her:  It is a presentation of the doctrine of definite atonement, also known as particular redemption or limited atonement.  The book covers four aspects: the doctrine in church history, in biblical passages, in theological understanding, and in pastoral application.

This is the most thorough and in-depth treatment of this subject that has ever been written.  It is a landmark book which, I believe, will become the standard reference book for anyone who wishes to undertake a comprehensive study of this doctrine.  This is not a book for the casual reader who is looking for a quick study, a light overview of the subject.  This is a seminary level treatment of this topic which addresses all the aspects of definite atonement.  It tackles all the arguments against it, interacting with the scholars of opposing viewpoints, while at the same time providing a mountain of biblical and theological support for it.  The book is edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, and is a compilation of chapters written by twenty-one of the world's foremost Reformed Protestant evangelical scholars, including men such as Henri Blocher, Sinclair Ferguson, John Piper, Thomas Schreiner, and Carl Trueman.  The foreword is written by J. I. Packer and it has received endorsements from men of exceptional scholarship, including D. A. Carson, Michael Horton, David Wells, John Frame, and Ligon Duncan.

I highly recomment this book, but as I said, it is not light reading.  But it is a book which will cause you to think and meditate on the glorious doctrine of the atonement and all that Christ accomplished through His propitiatory sacrifice.  The hardback edition is available at the present time from Westminster Bookstore (wtsbooks.com) for $32.50 plus $4.99 USPS shipping, or as a Kindle download edition from Amazon.com for $19.99. 

An Uncommon Commitment to Christ

by Bruce Mills

I just finished reading John Piper’s biography of John Paton (Pāy’tәn), pioneer missionary to the New Hebrides Islands during the late 1800s.  As I read, I was struck with a deep sense of Paton’s commitment to the service of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, regardless of the cost to him.  The New Hebrides were filled with cannibals who had killed and eaten other missionaries who had preceded Paton and thus, most of the evangelical church had determined that the islands were off limits to evangelization.  But not to be deterred, Paton announced to the elders of his church that he believed God had directed him to go to the New Hebrides.  One of the older elders, a Mr. Dickson, exploded, “The cannibals! You will be eaten by cannibals!” John Paton’s direct, unequivocal, in-your-face response was:

Mr. Dickson, you are advanced in years now, and your own prospect is soon to be laid in the grave, there to be eaten by worms; I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving and honoring the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by cannibals or by worms; and in the Great Day my resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer.

With that kind of commitment to Christ, Paton and his pregnant wife Mary, arrived in the New Hebrides in November 1858.  The couple’s son was born a few months later in February, but after only one month, both Mary and the child died of an epidemic that was sweeping through the island population.  After digging both graves with his own hands, he buried them and slept on the graves for two nights in order to keep the cannibals from digging up the bodies and eating them.  He continued to evangelize the natives on the island for the next four years while in constant danger, until they finally drove him off the island.

But Paton’s commitment to Christ and to the New Hebrides was so great that after remarrying two years later, he and his new wife Margaret returned to the island of Aniwa in the New Hebrides.  The Patons labored together for 41 years until Margaret’s death in 1905 when John was 81 years old.  Despite the continual dangers and threats from the cannibals, the Patons persevered, eventually leading thousands to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.  They trained pastors, taught the natives to read, dispensed medicines, conducted worship services, and sent native teachers to all the villages to proclaim the gospel.  Eventually the entire island of Aniwa turned to Christ, and even today—105 years since the death of John Paton—85% of the population of Aniwa (now known as Vanuatu) identifies itself as Christian, with perhaps 21% of the population being evangelical.

From where did Paton’s unflagging courage to serve Christ come?  Piper points out several reasons for such tremendous courage, but the two which I found most interesting were: (1) His commitment to the doctrines of Calvinism, and (2) His confidence in the sovereignty of God controlling all circumstances. 

Paton recognized that everyone who comes to faith in Christ does so solely because of His sovereign choice and effectual call in drawing those to Himself.  He wrote about these matters, stating “Regeneration is the sole work of the Holy Spirit in the human heart and soul, and is in every case one and the same.”  He then concluded, stating, “Oh, Jesus!  To Thee alone be all the glory.  Thou hast the key to unlock every heart that Thou has created.”  So despite all the misrepresentations of Calvinism’s doctrines and their impact on evangelism, it was his Calvinism that functioned as the impetus for Paton’s overwhelming passion for missions.

In addition, his deep trust in the sovereignty of God allowed him to serve in the most dangerous of circumstances without fear of death.  About one situation in which he and a native believer were surrounded by hostile cannibals who intended to kill them and were urging one another to strike the first blow, Paton wrote:

My heart rose up to the Lord Jesus; I saw Him watching all the scene.  My peace came back to me like a wave from God.  I realized that I was immortal till my Master’s work with me was done.  The assurance came to me, as if a voice out of Heaven had spoken, that not a musket would be fired to wound us, not a club prevail to strike us, not a spear leave the hand in which it was held vibrating to be thrown, not an arrow leave the bow, or a killing stone the fingers, without the permission of Jesus Christ, whose is all power in Heaven and on Earth.  He rules all Nature, animate and inanimate, and restrains even the Savage of the South Seas.

What a deep understanding and application of God’s sovereignty!  John Paton was one of God’s choicest servants whose commitment to Jesus Christ exceeded anything that most Christians today can comprehend.  My heart was challenged by my own lack of commitment, my failure to share the gospel as I should, and how often I fail to apply the truths about God’s sovereignty to how I live my daily life.  I recommend every Christian read either a biography of John Paton (there are several), or perhaps Paton’s own autobiography.  I guarantee that your heart will be challenged also by the incredible commitment of this man of God.

How Did Christ Become Sin for Us?

by Bruce Mills

A few weeks ago, a friend asked the following question: 2 Corinthians 5:21 says:  “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”  So does this mean that Christ gave up His holiness at the cross?   How could this be if God is inherently holy? 

This is a very significant question, so let me pass along the answer I gave because I’m sure others have wondered the same thing. 

Because we know that Christ was without sin, the phrase “to be sin” requires a careful understanding.  It does not mean that Christ became a sinner.  As God in human flesh, He could not possibly have committed any sin or in any way violated God’s law.  It is equally unthinkable that God, whose “eyes are too pure to approve evil” (Hab. 1:13), would make anyone a sinner, let alone His own holy Son.  He was the unblemished Lamb of God while on the cross, personally guilty of no sin.  Isa. 53:4-6 describes the only sense in which Jesus could have been made sin.  It says:

⁴Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.  ⁵But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.  ⁶All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

Jesus was not made a sinner, nor was He punished for any sin of His own.  Instead, the Father treated Him as if He were a sinner by charging to His account the sins of everyone who would ever believe.  All those sins were charged against Him as if He had personally committed them, and He was punished with the penalty for them on the cross, experiencing the full fury of God’s wrath unleashed against them all. 

This is what we call “imputation.”  In the same way that Christ was made “to be sin” by our sin being imputed to Him, so also, the righteousness of Christ was imputed to our account so that we were made to “become the righteousness of God in Him.”  We are not sinless and righteous, but through imputation in which Christ’s righteousness is charged to our account, God looks on us as being as pure and sinless as Jesus Christ.  So imputation works both ways—our sin was imputed to Christ, and His righteousness was imputed to us.  He remained absolutely holy and sinless, but was treated as though He had sinned; we are absolutely corrupt and sinful, but are treated as though we have never sinned.  What incredible, marvelous grace!

The Next Step: Infanticide

by Bruce Mills

Recently, two professors calling themselves “ethicists” published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics attempting to justify what they termed “after birth abortion.”  The term is an interesting one because it is specifically designed to blunt the outrage that would undoubtedly occur if the procedure they are recommending was called what it has been known as throughout human history—infanticide.

These two professors—one from the University of Milan (Italy) and the other from the University of Melbourne (Australia)—do not attempt to hide their agenda.  They argue that newborn babies are unable to understand events taking place around them and cannot anticipate what may occur, and therefore do not truly possess the necessary characteristics to be considered to have reached personhood status.

The professors acknowledge their preference for the term “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” because they claim that the birth of the child is not morally significant.  They justify their position with two arguments:

First, they state, “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”

Second, they argue that “it is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to be a person in the morally relevant sense.”

These two arguments lead them to this conclusion: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack the properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

In other words, an infant is not significantly different than an unborn fetus, and thus, so long as that infant remains so, it is perfectly justifiable to terminate that infant’s life. 

Now, we must first understand that this viewpoint is the logical next step to abortion.  The basis of the whole argument for abortion is that the fetus lacks moral status as a human being.  So to argue that it is okay to execute a newborn infant isn’t a significant leap in moral laxity from arguing that it is okay to perform a late term abortion on an unborn child.  And in the same manner, it is not a significant leap to then argue that it is okay to euthanize those adults who because of mental disability or dementia are not capable of understanding the events taking place around them, anticipating the future, and reacting appropriately to such.

What the professors and the pro-abortionists neither understand nor believe is that human beings do not receive their moral status as persons because of their abilities to think, act, and react by some human determination of personhood.  Rather, man’s moral status is determined because he has been created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26).  Nothing more, nothing less.  It is only because the unborn fetus, the newborn infant, the mentally handicapped individual, and the elderly person whose reasoning abilities have been taken by the ravages of dementia all bear the image of God that they have moral status as human beings.  And because they all bear that image and thus have status as human beings, they are entitled to life so long as determined by the God who created them.  He is the One who determines what is morally right, not man, and He determines both the quality (Exodus 4:11) and extent of man’s life (Job 14:5).

So the professors may attempt to disguise infanticide by calling it “post-birth abortion,” but regardless of what they call it, it is still a moral outrage.  But what else should we expect from those who reject any objective standard of morality?

Non-negotiable Doctrines

by Bruce Mills
Which doctrines are so crucial that if someone denies any one of them, he cannot be considered to be a true Christian?  I’ve given some thought to that, and here is my list.

1. The inerrancy and authority of the Bible.
2. The virgin birth of Christ.
3. His complete divinity.
4. His substitutionary atonement.
5. His bodily resurrection.
6. His physical return for His people.
7. Man’s fallen, sinful condition and his inability to save himself.
8. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

There are other doctrines which others may argue should be added to this list, but these are what I believe are the absolute, fundamental, non-negotiable doctrines which all true Christians must believe. Other doctrines which are not specifically listed may “fit into” one of these doctrines; i.e., the doctrine of the humanity of Christ can be seen to be a part of our understanding of His virgin birth.

While believers may disagree on the details of certain doctrines, belief in the doctrines listed above is non-negotiable. If anyone claims to be a Christian, yet does not hold to these truths, there is solid reason to question the validity of his/her claim.

I do not mean that there might, at times, be differences of opinion regarding certain details about the doctrines listed above (such as whether Christ’s atonement was limited in scope or unlimited in scope, or the timing of His return for the church), but anyone who denies any of these basic beliefs cannot legitimately claim to be a true believer and follower of Christ.

Responding to Laws We Don’t Like

by Bruce Mills

A few days ago a Christian friend of mine received a traffic citation for not wearing his seat belt when driving his car.  He was incensed, giving the usual complaints about the enforcement of such safety laws as a waste of law enforcement’s time (“they should be catching true bad guys instead of harassing fathers taking their children to the park”) and being a violation of a driver’s freedom of choice (“this is the land of the free, isn’t it?”).  Another Christian friend (and lawyer) interacted with him very effectively regarding the legal aspects of his offense and why it is important to have such laws and to enforce them, but I think there is a much bigger issue at stake here than most believers ever realize.

The point is that there are many laws about which there is disagreement as to their validity or their enforcement.  But whether the government should enforce certain laws and not others is not the issue.  The issue is that obedience to those laws is not an option for the believer.  Christians are to willingly and joyfully submit to those laws, even if they disagree with them.  Why?  Because the government which passed those laws is ordained by God (Rom. 13:1) and anyone who resists the government’s authority is living in disobedience to God (Rom. 13:2).  The apostle Paul goes on to say that it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of what actions the government might take against us, but also for the sake of our conscience (Rom. 13:5).  In other words, we are not to obey the law only because we might get caught, but also because doing so violates our God-given conscience which helps us discern right and wrong.  Disobedience to the law is an act of non-submission to God-ordained authority over us and thus, a sin.  Only when the government commands us to do something which violates something God has commanded us in His Word to do are we ever authorized to disobey the law (Acts 5:28-29).

But what about my friend’s argument that law enforcement should utilize their assets more effectively by apprehending “true bad guys” instead of nabbing fathers driving their children to play time at the park?  Again, the issue is not whether we disagree with how the government is spending the tax dollars it receives.  No matter what law you may pick, you can always find someone who thinks it is a waste of time to enforce it.  And there are many expenditures which the government makes which I personally believe are a waste of resources which could be better used elsewhere.  However, we must return to the point that Christians are called to submit to our government and obey its laws—even those with which we disagree or those which we believe are unimportant.  Our submission to those laws provides us the opportunity to demonstrate to a watching world that followers of Jesus Christ are not shrill, disrespectful whiners who want our own way and think the laws are good for others, but not for us.  The apostle Peter instructed us that obedience to every authority and law is “the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:15). In other words, we should put those who oppose and attack us to shame by our example of submission and obedience to the law.  And we need to recognize that when we violate those laws, we deserve the consequences of the government’s decision to enforce those laws.

Now, let me give credit where credit is due to my friend.  After he received his citation, he explained to his children right in front of the officer that daddy had violated the law and was being rightfully punished for his actions.  He took advantage of a tremendous opportunity to teach his children to respect law enforcement officers, and the fact that even daddy is not spared from being corrected when he violates the law.  He made such an impact on his children that when they got home, they offered him the money in their piggy bank to help pay the fine and made a “thank you” card for the officer that said "Dear Policeman, thank you for telling us about seat belts."

I’m thrilled that he taught his children such a valuable lesson and did not verbalize his complaints in their hearing like he did with his adult friends.  Now if he will only teach those same truths to his own heart…

An Outstanding Response to Pat Robertson

Posted by Bruce Mills

This past week, Pat Robertson made headlines when he stated that Alzheimer’s disease is the equivalent of death and an individual who is married to an Alzheimer’s victim is justified in divorcing their spouse under such circumstances.  I thought about writing a post in response to his horrific declaration, but I believe Dr. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, has answered Robertson far better than I ever could.  So I have copied his blog post on this issue for your edification.  If you wish to read more of Dr. Moore’s blog posts, you will find them at his blog, Moore to the Point, at www.russellmoore.com.

Christ, the Church, and Pat Robertson

By Russell D. Moore

This week on his television show Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said a man would be morally justified to divorce his wife with Alzheimer’s disease in order to marry another woman. The dementia-riddled wife is, Robertson said, “not there” anymore. This is more than an embarrassment. This is more than cruelty. This is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Few Christians take Robertson all that seriously anymore. Most roll their eyes, and shake their heads when he makes another outlandish comment (for instance, defending China’s brutal one-child abortion policy to identifying God’s judgment on specific actions in the September 11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, or the Haiti earthquake). This is serious, though, because it points to an issue that is much bigger than Robertson.

Marriage, the Scripture tells us, is an icon of something deeper, more ancient, more mysterious. The marriage union is a sign, the Apostle Paul announces, of the mystery of Christ and his church (Eph. 5). The husband, then, is to love his wife “as Christ loved the church” (Eph. 5:25). This love is defined not as the hormonal surge of romance but as a self-sacrificial crucifixion of self. The husband pictures Christ when he loves his wife by giving himself up for her.

At the arrest of Christ, his Bride, the church, forgot who she was, and denied who he was. He didn’t divorce her. He didn’t leave.

The Bride of Christ fled his side, and went back to their old ways of life. When Jesus came to them after the resurrection, the church was about the very thing they were doing when Jesus found them in the first place: out on the boats with their nets. Jesus didn’t leave. He stood by his words, stood by his Bride, even to the Place of the Skull, and beyond.

A woman or a man with Alzheimer’s can’t do anything for you. There’s no romance, no sex, no partnership, not even companionship. That’s just the point. Because marriage is a Christ/church icon, a man loves his wife as his own flesh. He cannot sever her off from him simply because she isn’t “useful” anymore.

Pat Robertson’s cruel marriage statement is no anomaly. He and his cohorts have given us for years a prosperity gospel with more in common with an Asherah pole than a cross. They have given us a politicized Christianity that uses churches to “mobilize” voters rather than to stand prophetically outside the power structures as a witness for the gospel.

But Jesus didn’t die for a Christian Coalition; he died for a church. And the church, across the ages, isn’t significant because of her size or influence. She is weak, helpless, and spattered in blood. He is faithful to us anyway.

If our churches are to survive, we must repudiate this Canaanite mammonocracy that so often speaks for us. But, beyond that, we must train up a new generation to see the gospel embedded in fidelity, a fidelity that is cruciform.

It’s easy to teach couples to put the “spark” back in their marriages, to put the “sizzle” back in their sex lives. You can still worship the self and want all that. But that’s not what love is. Love is fidelity with a cross on your back. Love is drowning in your own blood. Love is screaming, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.”

Sadly, many of our neighbors assume that when they hear the parade of cartoon characters we allow to speak for us, that they are hearing the gospel. They assume that when they see the giggling evangelist on the television screen, that they see Jesus. They assume that when they see the stadium political rallies to “take back America for Christ,” that they see Jesus. But Jesus isn’t there.

Jesus tells us he is present in the weak, the vulnerable, the useless. He is there in the least of these (Matt. 25:31-46). Somewhere out there right now, a man is wiping the drool from an 85 year-old woman who flinches because she think he’s a stranger. No television cameras are around. No politicians are seeking a meeting with them.

But the gospel is there. Jesus is there.

Guaranteeing a Debt: A Biblical View on Surety

by Bruce Mills

Recently, a man in our church who ministers to college students wrote the following question to the elders: “I was teaching my guys accountability group out of Proverbs 6:1-5. I have always taken this passage to mean that Solomon is against us becoming a surety for another person’s debt. Because I deal with college students, the question came up about parents cosigning for student loans or for their first apartment. I would appreciate input into this matter. Basically, is the teaching of Proverbs and thus the Bible that we should not become a surety for anyone else's debt regardless of our relationship to them and does this include cosigning on loans?”

Two elders shared their perspective on this matter, and because there may be others who wonder about what the Bible says about this situation, I decided to post the two responses here on the blog.  The first response is from Curt Sharbaugh, who serves on our staff as one of our Associate Pastors.  Curt received his undergraduate degree from the Moody Bible Institute and his graduate degree from Wheaton College.  He writes:

Here’s my two cents on this. I would say that there’s a danger in reading Proverbs as a list of prohibitions and commands. There’s a difference in terms of genre between proverbs and law. When a proverb says, “don’t” it doesn’t necessarily mean “never.” Take for example the interpretive guide to the book found in Proverbs 26:4 and 5: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (ESV). If the Proverbs were meant as commands in every case, we’d be in big trouble at this point. The writer has purposefully included these two opposing and yet harmonious proverbs next to each other to illustrate the fact that different situations may call for different courses of action. It’s interesting that a few verses later, it says, “Like a lame man's legs, which hang useless, is a proverb in the mouth of fools… Like a thorn that goes up into the hand of a drunkard is a proverb in the mouth of fools.” (Proverbs 26:7, 9 ESV). The writer is warning against the misuse of proverbs, while in that same context giving us a clue as to how they work. They’re wise sayings that guide us toward wise living. In some cases, they tell us foundational truths about the wisdom of God, such as “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Sometimes, they do rephrase commands from the Mosaic Law in the form of a proverb (e.g. Deut. 19:14 and Prov. 22:28), but at other times, they simply tell us what is “generally speaking” the best course of action to take or what is “generally” true.

As far as I can tell, Proverbs 6:1-5 is of the latter, and is giving us a warning of the danger of becoming legally liable for someone else’s debt. It does not mean that one can never do this. Clearly this is a concern of Proverbs as similar ideas are mentioned throughout. Sometimes the emphasis is on the foolishness of doing this with a “stranger”, that is, a foreigner (20:16). Sometimes it is more generally stated to include “neighbors,” that is, fellow Israelites (17:18). Here in Proverbs 6 it is stated comprehensively and includes anyone (notice the merism “neighbor” and “stranger”, i.e. everyone). I would say it’s teaching us that, generally speaking, it’s not wise to become liable for someone else’s debt. It could wreck you financially. But I would not say this proverb is saying that it is sinful to do so. What I think helps confirm this is that it does not appear to be a restatement of a Mosaic prohibition. Of course, even if it was, we may still need to evaluate it’s setting within the Old Covenant.

Proverbs 6:1-5 would seem to be a general warning against taking on liability for someone else’s debt, but not without exception. Were we to go back to the setting of ancient Israel and ask about whether we could apply this to a father and his son, I think we’d hear an exception, but proverbs do not generally state exceptions. They’re just pithy statements of wisdom. Plus a son or daughter would not generally be referred to as a “neighbor” much less a “stranger,” so it’s even more likely they would not have been included in this general principle. Proverbs 6:1-5 is not a treatise on right and wrong business practices; it’s a short poetic discourse on the dangers of financial irresponsibility. So I would not conclude that cosigning a child’s loan, or one for someone who was like family for that matter, would be wrong. There may be other situations where this would not be wrong. In general, however, it’s wise to stay away from debt, and it’s unwise to take on others’ debt.

I was the other elder who shared his thoughts on this matter, and while my response is not as technical or analytical as Curt’s, here is what I had to say:

I would concur with Curt's explanation that the Proverbs are not designed as absolutes. The book of Proverbs is a guidebook for godly conduct, consisting of practical principles for righteous living. In his commentary on the Proverbs, Jay Adams states, "...the proverbs warn, instruct, expose folly, point the way to wisdom, tell you what to expect in life (describing what it is like), show you how to live life in ways that please God and give you an idea of how things tend to work out without always being absolute about it."

I agree with Curt's analysis and interpretation of Prov. 6:1-5, so I will not repeat what he has said. However, let me add a couple of other observations. In studying the practices of lending that were permitted and not permitted under the Law, it is clear that there was to be no interest charged to a poor person. But it was permissible to charge interest to others. However, usury (the charging of exorbitant interest rates) was prohibited. In Nehemiah 5, there is discussion of the people mortgaging their houses, fields, vineyards, etc. in order to buy food. And in verses 10-11, Nehemiah orders the rulers to stop charging usury to the people which was apparently 1% per month (12% per annum). Just like today, if someone had a mortgage that they were paying 12% APR on, we would all agree that it was exorbitantly high, particularly when mortgage rates are around 4% right now.

My point is that many commentators believe Prov. 6:1-5 is warning against cosigning for someone on a loan on which the interest rate is so high as to be usury and you find yourself trapped by the agreement. Notice the conditional aspect in verse 2: "if you have been snared." But if a parent is financially capable of assisting their child in obtaining a student loan or an auto loan or an apartment lease agreement by cosigning for them, and the interest rate is low and affordable, then I do not believe Proverbs is absolutely prohibiting them from doing so. However, there is still the warning that something might go wrong and the parents would become responsible to pay back that loan, and then they may become trapped by their agreement to pay. In such cases, Proverbs advises them to plead with the creditor to release them from the agreement or modify it so as to be affordable.

Another interpretation of this passage is that it is warning against making rash agreements to become surety for another which may trap the individual in something they haven't really thought through. Since the Proverbs are written to young sons as a means of instruction, this would warn young men of the danger of making rash agreements that they have not thought through or about which they have not received any wise counsel. Charles Bridges, one of the most famous commentators on the Proverbs, points out that there are some examples of becoming surety for another that were apparently okay (Reuben and Judah for Benjamin in Gen. 42:37, 43:9, 44:32-33; Paul for Onesimus in Philemon 18-19). So while we think of surety as applying to financial arrangements, the Scriptures do not carry that limited meaning or understanding. The concept of surety is that of a guarantee to be liable for someone else, whether for his debts, damages, or default. To bring it up to today, a parent who carries their child on their auto insurance policy has agreed to become the surety for that child's actions while driving the family vehicle. The principle of Proverbs would apply in that situation just like they do in your example of co-signing a loan. So if you are going to consistently apply your understanding that Proverbs is absolutely prohibiting surety for another (including your children), then a parent would be prohibited from including the child on their auto insurance policy (even though the insurance company requires such while the child is still living at home), merely because to do so is to be surety for that child. I'm not certain you would want to take the principle that far.

So, as Curt stated, the principle of Proverbs is to avoid debt if possible. If a child or close friend needs the money and it is within the individual's ability, they should give them the money or they can loan the money to them at no interest. But if they don't have the money that is needed, and the child has not yet reached the stage in life where they have the ability to get the loan (or auto insurance) themselves, the principle from Proverbs is BE EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS ABOUT CO-SIGNING FOR ANYONE OR BECOMING SURETY IN ANY WAY FOR THEM, BECAUSE YOU MIGHT GET TRAPPED. But because the Proverbs are not absolute edicts, I do not believe you can take it to mean that co-signing or becoming surety in some other way is absolutely prohibited. It may not be wise (particularly if it is an apartment lease agreement), but it is not prohibited.

A Ministry that Honors Jesus Christ

by Bruce Mills

I taught on John 3:22-36 in my class today, and as I studied this passage in preparation to teach it, I noted an important principle to which all ministers of the Gospel today should pass close attention. It has to do with how one should deal with the envy and jealousy that can so easily arise in a minister’s heart over the success of someone else’s ministry, and what the focus of every minister’s heart should be in order to honor the Lord in his ministry.

The passage is dealing with the transition from John the Baptist’s ministry to Jesus’ ministry.  It is a very important overlap. John the Baptist was initially the guy who was drawing the big crowds, but Jesus began His ministry and little by little, the people start moving over to Jesus. It took a period of about six months, but over that time, John’s crowds thinned out, and Jesus’ crowds grew.  But that was a great blessing to John, because that was the whole point of his ministry; to get them over there to where Jesus was.

John is a fabulous example of humble faithfulness for us. He wasn’t fretting over how things were going, saying, “Oh, my ministry is crumbling. The crowds are getting smaller. I need to figure out some method of enticing them back. Maybe we ought to give away an iPhone to whoever brings the most people or put a Starbucks in the lobby.” No, he wasn’t into gimmicks. He was a man of humble faithfulness.

So many pastors measure the success of their ministry on how many bodies they have coming each week. And there is a terrible tendency in the American church culture to assume that a big crowd means you must be doing something right. But you see, the success of a ministry is not measured by the number of people who it attracts, but rather the success of a ministry is measured by the spiritual impact in the lives of those who are there.

And so by that standard John’s ministry was totally successful because his crowds were diminishing and going to Jesus, and that’s exactly what he wanted them to do. He wasn’t trying to get a crowd, he was trying to get rid of a crowd. And John is a tremendous example of humility. There he was, simply ministering and pointing people to Christ, and the people were leaving and he was just carrying on.

In John 3:27, when John said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven,” what he was saying was, “If I’ve been successful, it was because God made me successful. If my ministry is over, then God is the One who is turning it off. If people are leaving my ministry and going to Jesus, it’s because God is sending them there. I don’t need to stand back and be jealous of what God is doing. No one ever received anything except that which God gave to him. So you can’t make me jealous of that.” What incredible character this man had!

This principle applies to every one of us. God’s sovereign authority grants the extent of one’s ministry. That’s the way it is. Paul put it this way in 1 Cor. 4:7--“For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” Everything you have is God’s gift to you. In 1 Cor. 15:10 Paul says, “…by the grace of God I am what I am…” It’s all a gift. If you have a successful ministry, it’s the grace of God. Whether it is teaching a class of adults or a class of second graders, or preaching to a church filled with hundreds or thousands, it’s all of the grace of God. God is the One who sovereignly determines the size and the success of a ministry.

Notice how John illustrates this in John 3:28. He says, “You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent ahead of Him.’”  In other words, “Listen, I’ve been telling you all along that I am not the Christ and that you need to go see Jesus. He’s the Lamb of God. So why are you trying to stir up jealousy in my heart? I’ve been telling you all along He’s the one.”

Do you know how to tell the character of any great minister? Not by how many people follow the minister, but how many people follow Jesus Christ because of his ministry. Any time you run into a ministry where people are constantly attached to the minister, be careful of that ministry, because something is wrong. Any God-blessed, God-given ministry makes disciples of Jesus Christ, not disciples of some man. And John’s ministry was a joyous ministry because he had sent a whole nation to Jesus Christ. Once they got to Him, they had a lot of problems, but John had done his job.

John was a wonderful example for all true ministers of God that they should not seek after personal fame and should not worry about how big the crowd is that is following them. Instead they should just keep pointing the people to Jesus Christ, because He is what it is all about. Pastors and leaders who fret over the size of their church and what they can do to attract and keep a crowd have missed the point that their mission is only to faithfully teach the Word and point people to Jesus Christ. If they do that, God will bless that ministry.

I don’t mean that a pastor or teacher shouldn’t strive to improve and to be an excellent expositor and teacher of the Word, because he should. And I’m not saying that church leaders shouldn’t give consideration to how to improve the various ministries in their church so that they become known for their excellence. But when a minister chooses business marketing and corporate growth techniques to build his church instead of faithfully following the Word of God and teaching the sheep God has given him responsibility to shepherd, he has turned the church into a business rather than a ministry. More pastors need to be like John the Baptist and see themselves only as caretakers who introduce people to Jesus Christ and help them grow deeper in their understanding of Him and His Word, and stop worrying about how big the crowd is that shows up on Sunday. God will take care of those things if the church leaders are godly men who are obedient to the Word.

God’s Marvelous Provision

by Bruce Mills

Several months ago, my son and daughter-in-law decided that they would start the long and involved process of adopting a child. This was a decision they made after suffering the sorrow of multiple miscarriages. This was a particularly difficult experience for my daughter-in-law, as many of her friends were experiencing the joy of having children while she was unable to do so. But the Lord has used it as a means of spiritual growth for them as they have learned more about the sovereignty of God and His love for them than they ever would have otherwise.

But they decided to pursue adoption as a means of adding a child to their family. They began the process of saving and fundraising to pay for this extremely expensive process. At the present time, the cost to adopt a child is between $18,000 and $20,000, all of which must be paid before the child is taken home by the adoptive parents.  So it is a monumental task to gather that kind of money in a relatively short period of time.

After saving some of their own money and raising additional money through a large garage sale and t-shirt sales, they were doing well in gathering funds, but were nowhere near what they required. Suddenly and unexpectedly, their adoption coordinator called them and asked them if they were interested in pursuing the placement of a little girl due to be born on August 16th. There were some good reasons to pursue this particular child, particularly the fact that the mother had no addiction issues which almost always cause lifelong problems for the child. They were extremely surprised but decided that they would attempt to see if they could raise the additional funds they needed in the one month they had before the baby would come.  Plus they had to get an entire nursery ready, including painting and obtaining all the furniture and other supplies normally associated with caring for a baby.

After checking how much money they had accrued, they determined that they were $7,000 short. Using a new means of fundraising recommended to them by friends who have adopted, they began a Facebook-a-thon, seeking donations from friends and family to help bring this little girl home to a loving family.  That is when the amazing love of God’s people began to be demonstrated at a level that I must admit I didn’t expect. In less than two weeks, God used His people to generously give all $7,000 of the funds they needed! My faith was certainly far too small, as I never expected them to raise more than a couple of thousand dollars at the most. But God marvelously worked in the hearts of people to give far more abundantly than I could ever ask or think (Eph. 3:20). All the glory goes to God alone, who has used His children to provide the opportunity for a sweet little girl who needs a family that will love her with the love of Christ to be able to bring her home.

Now, all we have to do is wait for this young birth mother to give birth, and pray that the baby is healthy and that the mother does not change her mind at the last minute. Please pray with us to that end.

Widows, Orphans, & Aliens

by Bruce Mills

Scripture repeatedly discusses three groups of people for whom God has a special love and concern. They are widows, orphans, and aliens.  There are ten verses in the Bible in which God emphasizes His love for all three groups (Deut. 10:18; 14:29; 24:17, 19, 20, 21; 26:13; 27:19; Jer. 7:6; Mal. 3:5).  There are many more verses which express God’s concern for only one or two of those groups. It is clear that those who find themselves in one of these categories are very special to our Lord.  He demands that they be given justice, that they are provided with the food and other needs which they require, and no one must ever cheat any such individual out of any money that belongs to them.

The question which arises is, what are some of the implications of these divine commands for us as we interact with those who are widows, orphans, or aliens?

In regard to widows, it means that we are to insure that the widows in our churches receive special attention in terms of financial support if necessary, assistance with maintenance and upkeep of their homes, transportation to medical appointments and grocery shopping if needed, and visits to their homes to encourage them that we care for them.  This may seem like a “no brainer,” but I personally know of a church in which it took a friend of mine about a year to convince the church leadership that a ministry that provides such assistance for the widows in the church was a good and godly thing to do.  He was told over and over that such a ministry was unnecessary.  It was as though they were oblivious to the biblical instruction regarding the believer’s responsibilities to widows.  It was only after he managed to get approval to give such a ministry a “test run” that the church’s leaders saw the value of reaching out to the widows in that church.

In regard to orphans, it means that we encourage Christians to adopt those orphaned children, and attempt to provide means by which potential adoptive parents can raise the funds needed to pay for an adoption.  It means that we hold up adoption to our congregation as an important way to advance God’s kingdom by adopting and raising those children in homes in which honoring and glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ is the consuming passion of life.  Providing adoption seminars to help the couples in our churches to understand how precious orphans are to the heart of God and providing assistance with the paperwork and home study are effective methods of encouraging believers to consider adoption.

In regard to aliens, it means that we evangelize and provide for the needs of aliens who live in our communities.  Whatever one’s thoughts on illegal immigration, the fact is that God calls believers to treat those aliens living around us with compassion and generosity.  That means that we do not take advantage of them in any financial or business transaction, such as paying a lower wage than we would pay someone else to do the same job, simply because we believe we can get away from it because the alien will not complain to anyone.  It means that churches should consider sponsoring ESL classes to assist aliens in learning the English language, which provides an opportunity to evangelize them.  It means that churches consider establishing live translation of services into the language of the primary people group living in the area, thereby providing a means by which those aliens can hear the Word of God and be evangelized.

There are certainly more ways by which believers can provide practical assistance to widows, orphans, and aliens.  These are just a few ideas. God has made it very clear that all three groups are very special to Him and thus, they should be very special to us. We need to be obedient to Scripture and care for them in a way which brings glory to God and tangibly demonstrates His love for them.

Eternally Secure

by Bruce Mills

I had the tremendous privilege of preaching this morning on the eternal security of the believer. My text was Romans 8:29-30. It is a passage filled with deep, rich truths regarding the doctrine of predestination and election. The debate over the security of the believer’s salvation has been debated throughout the history of the church. It is an issue which has split the whole of Christendom into two camps. One group believes that salvation is eternal and no true believer can lose his salvation, but the other side believes that salvation is not necessarily eternal, but can be forfeited by sin.

The truth is that this is an unnecessary debate because the Word of God is so abundantly clear on the matter of the believer’s security.  In fact, Romans 8:28-30 presents the clearest and most powerful statement of security in all of Scripture. These verses guarantee without deviation, variation, or exception that all those who are genuinely saved will enter into final glory.

The purpose of God in our salvation, according to Romans 8:29-30 is to conform us to the image of His Son. God didn’t predestine His elect only to the beginning of our salvation but also to the end of it which is to be conformed to the image of His Son.  When we’re finally in glory, we’ll be like Jesus Christ and so our predestination is to our eternal glory when we are completely conformed to His image.  So God’s intent is to bring us all the way to glory.  Believers aren’t saved just to help us temporarily in this life if we can hang on to it by our own power.  We were saved in order that we might be finally brought into the surpassing riches and glory of His grace in the ages to come.  And since it isn’t a matter of works to get saved, it’s not a matter of works to stay saved.  It was grace that saved us, it is grace that keeps us, and it will be grace that brings us to glory.

I don’t mean to shock you too badly, but contrary to what most modern evangelism methods seem to teach, the purpose of salvation is not primarily for you.  The purpose of salvation was not primarily to deliver you from hell and take you to heaven.  That’s a wonderful benefit, but it is a secondary benefit.  No, the purpose of your salvation was so that you could be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.

What does that mean?  It means that God’s plan in salvation was to make those He saved like His Son.  Forgiveness of sin…that’s a wonderful benefit.  Removal of guilt, the granting of peace and joy and love…all of those are a part of salvation, but the primary goal is to make you like Jesus Christ.  Salvation cannot stop short of that, or it’s not the salvation God planned.  It cannot just stop with calling; that is, that God just calls and then hopes.  It cannot end with justification; that is, He justifies but then He just kind of hopes that those individuals get to glory. 

No, the plan and purpose of God, the kind intention of His will, is that we will be “conformed to the image of His Son,” and that includes the glory that His Son now has. We have been saved in hope, and the hope in which we’ve been saved is that someday we’ll be like Christ.

And the passage in Romans 8:29-30 tells us that those whom God predetermined and foreordained to love eternally, He marked out (that is, predestined) to go all the way to glory and be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.  And in time, He has been effectually calling those who God has predestined to salvation.  And all those whom He has ordained, hear that call and believe.

And none of them are going to fall through the cracks between their calling and their eternal glory.  The doctrine that you can lose your salvation is a frightening aberration of Scripture.  God came, and He awakened those He has chosen from the dead, shone light into their darkness, and convicted them of sin and righteousness and judgment. They felt the weight of their sin and the pain of isolation and alienation from God.  And that awakening came upon hearing and understanding the gospel. 

They might hear it from a pastor, a teacher, a book, from the pages of Scripture, from the witness of a friend or family member, but the response of the heart with a conviction of sin, the desire for righteousness, a comprehension of the need for forgiveness, and an understanding of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, only comes about by the call of God. 

As I studied these things in preparation for teaching, I thought about those who believe they can lose their salvation because of some sin in their life.  My own grandmother went to her grave believing that all it took was to die with some unforgiven sin on her account and she would be condemned to an eternity in hell.  As I thought about such people, I was struck by how paralyzing and frightening it must be to live with such a belief.  To think that all it takes is one sin committed just prior to a fatal accident or heart attack and one would lose their salvation and be condemned to hell—how incredibly frightening that must be! How can one ever experience the joy of their salvation when they truly believe they can lose their salvation at any moment?

But I also realized that there is another consequence of believing that one can lose his or her salvation because of sin, and that is that in order to maintain any kind of sense of sanity and normalcy in one's life, he must reduce sin to a level in which it is far less of an offense against God than it actually is. After all, if those who believe that sin will cause them to lose their salvation truly understood the seriousness of sin as God portrays it in Scripture, they would know that it includes not only outward actions, but also inward motivations and attitudes. That was Jesus’ whole point throughout the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). He repeatedly stated that it wasn’t just an outward, external sin that offends God, but it was the internal attitude of the heart.  But those who think sin can cause them to lose their salvation don't usually think so-called "minor" sins such as attitudes and motives can cause them to lose their salvation. They think only so-called "big" sins result in such a loss. Their view is strikingly similar to that of the Pharisees whom Jesus was confronting. But that was not our Lord's viewpoint on sin. He saw all sin, including internal attitudes and motives, as offending a holy God, thus requiring His grace in order to be forgiven. Because all of us are continuously battling against sin in our hearts and minds, we can only be assured of going to heaven when we die because God’s grace is being continuously poured out, guaranteeing the security of our salvation.

Another issue with believing that one can lose his or her salvation is that it leaves man in charge of his eternal salvation and makes God a lesser god; a diminished deity who sits in heaven wringing his hands, hoping that the people He created will exercise their will to choose Christ, incapable of guaranteeing their salvation apart from their own sovereign choice over the matter. My friends, that is not the God of the Bible!

So, God determined in eternity past to bring us to glory.  And in that process, no one gets lost. It’s not our choice of God that matters, but rather God’s choice of us. It’s not our effectual faith, but His effectual call. It’s not our ability to persevere, but the fact that He has determined beforehand to persevere with us to the very end. And the only response we should have is continual praise to our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, because of His glorious grace.

The Consequences of Camping

by Bruce Mills

Harold Camping demonstrated without any doubt (in case anyone still happens to think he might have some validity) that he is a false prophet.  Deuteronomy 18:22 is very clear about how to detect a false prophet.  It says, “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.”  There is no doubt that Camping claimed to speak for the Lord, predicted the rapture (which didn’t happen as he predicted), and thus, no one should pay any attention to him.  His brazen claim to predict the date of the rapture is also in direct conflict with Jesus’ statement regarding the apocalypse in Matthew 24:36 where He said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”  If even Jesus in His incarnation didn’t know the timing of the Lord’s return, why would Harold Camping think he was capable of determining the day and time of that event?

And now that he has been proven wrong, he has done exactly as I expected—he has come up with another bizarre explanation that May 21st was an “invisible judgment day” and that the physical judgment day for the world will be October 21st. The question is, what will he say if judgment day does not occur on October 21st as he has predicted? Let me predict now that if such is the case, he will once again come up with some cockeyed explanation and a new date for the Lord’s return.  And I will also predict that there will still be a few idiots out there who will believe him.

But I think the issue that bothers me the most about this whole disheartening incident is the unabated ridicule that has been directed toward anyone who believes that Christ will one day return physically and rapture His church, followed by a period of tribulation of a like which the world has never seen.  Camping’s fraudulent date-setting has opened the gates for talk-show hosts, news anchors, journalists, and even our next door neighbors to heap scorn and disdain on anyone who would proclaim the truth of Scripture regarding Christ’s return. As I listened to a radio talk show host scoffing and trash-talking anyone who would believe Camping, he sounded exactly like those who the apostle Peter described in 2 Peter 3:3-4 where he said, “Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.’”  Had Camping taught the truth of the Scriptures rather than violating Scripture by engaging in setting dates, the scoffers would still be there, but not the extreme intensity that we now see.

The only positive thing which Camping’s actions have accomplished is that his true colors have now been revealed to a much greater percentage of true Christians. I cannot count how many times through the years I have been approached by believers with questions about Camping’s teaching, and I had to explain to them why he is a false teacher. They often replied, “But he sounds so convincing.” Many of those people left, saying they appreciated my explanation, but I could tell they had doubts about what I told them and were still wondering if there was a possibility that Camping was a legitimate Bible teacher.  But now Camping himself has removed any doubts in the minds of most Christians about who and what he is. Now if we can just get back to watching for our Lord’s imminent return as we should—by simply believing and proclaiming, “Perhaps today!”

A Great New Book

by Bruce Mills

In connection with my prior post, I wanted to follow up with information regarding Pastor Steve Kreloff’s newest book, Timeless Truths from a Faithful Shepherd.  This book is an anthology of some of his landmark sermons selected from his thirty years of ministry as the pastor of Lakeside Community Chapel.  He truly is one of the outstanding verse-by-verse Bible teachers of our time. Pastor Steve Kreloff's careful exposition opens up the Scriptures with clarity and accuracy. He is as skilled and comfortable in Moses' Law and the book of Esther as he is in the Beatitudes. Whether you are familiar with a given text or not, you will gain fresh insights from these messages. The book is available on Amazon.com for only $12.47, or if you are around Lakeside, it is available at our book table for only $10.00.  Buy yours today and start reading!  Truly it will encourage your heart and challenge your thinking about how to apply these truths to your daily walk.

30 Years of Faithful Ministry

by Bruce Mills

Tomorrow, May 1st, Lakeside Community Chapel in Clearwater, Florida will celebrate the 30th anniversary of its Pastor-Teacher, Steve Kreloff.  Steve has actually been on staff at the church since 1976, but became the pastor in May 1981.  In a day when the average tenure of a pastor in the United States is six years, that is simply astounding.  The emphasis of his ministry has always been, and continues to be, the verse-by-verse teaching of the Word of God.

Steve is a Jewish Christian who, while a student at the University of South Florida, received Jesus as his Messiah, Lord and Savior. He is a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and Tampa Bay Theological Seminary (now known as Dallas Theological Seminary’s Tampa Bay Extension).  He is the Bible teacher on the Verse-by-Verse Ministries radio broadcast, heard daily in the Tampa Bay area on Salem Communications radio station WTBN.

Lakeside will celebrate by having Steve’s best friend since the days they attended Moody Bible Institute together—Phil Johnson—speak in both morning services and briefly in the evening service.  Phil is the executive director of Grace to You (the media arm of Dr. John MacArthur’s ministry) and the founder of Pyromaniacs, one of the most widely read blogs in the Christian blogosphere.  There will also be other speakers and special presentations in the evening service, followed by a reception.

I have had the privilege of being Steve’s friend since my wife and I began attending Lakeside shortly after we were married in 1976.  He was our Sunday School teacher at the time, and the Minister of Evangelism at the church.  We are the same age; our birthdays are less than a month apart, but he is older!  He took me under his wing and we began a year long one-on-one discipleship relationship.  We worked our way through theological, family, and ministry issues.  We were both learning and growing spiritually.  We developed a friendship which has stood the test of time. 

When I became an elder at Lakeside, it was Steve who recommended me to the other elders as being qualified for the position.  It was Steve who stood by me when I went through a particular difficulty in ministry that shook me to the core.  We suffered together through difficult church budgets and church discipline issues, saw other church leaders come and go, but Steve has continued to serve faithfully and diligently.  His character is impeccable and his heart to teach God’s Word so that people grow and change to be more like Christ has never wavered.  Our children grew up together, our wives served in various church ministries together, and we grew old together.

As I said earlier, Steve has always made the verse-by-verse exposition of the Scriptures a priority of his ministry.  To do that effectively, his sermons are typically 50-55 minutes in length.  Each sermon is a model of how to open up a passage so that the listener goes away with a thorough understanding of what the Bible writer intended when he originally wrote the passage.  It’s hard to be bored or concerned with the length of time he is speaking when you are truly listening, because he opens up the Word in a way that holds your attention and deepens your understanding of the Scriptures.  Because of his skill in teaching God’s Word, he has taught courses on expository preaching to other pastors all over the world.  Only eternity will reveal how many people have benefited from Steve selflessly teaching other men how to do what he does with the text of God’s Word.

Steve is a model of what a pastor should be for his congregation.  His greatest desire is to please His Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and to minister to his flock in the same way that Jesus would.  It has been my privilege to serve with him since 1983 as one of the elders at Lakeside.  I pray that the Lord will give us many more years together.

The True Light

by Bruce Mills

As we come to the Easter season, when we recall the single greatest event in the history of mankind—the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ—we need to remember why Jesus came to this world.  He didn’t come primarily to be a great example (though He was the perfect example), He didn’t come primarily to be a good Teacher (though He was the greatest teacher), and He didn’t come primarily to perform wonderful acts of kindness (though He was the most compassionate person who ever lived).  His primary purpose in coming was to bring Light and life to a sin-darkened world and save His elect children from their sins.

In John 8:12, Jesus is recorded as stating, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”  And earlier in the Gospel of John we are told that John the Baptist came as the forerunner of Christ, so that he could testify about that Light (John 1:7-8).  Now, there is something very important to consider here. Since when does someone have to testify about light? Why would anyone have to tell you “this is light”?

Several years ago, our family was on vacation and we stopped at Mammoth Cave in Kentucky. The tour guide took our tour group through the cave, pointing out various points of interest, and when we were far back in the cave, he turned out the lights and let us stand there in the darkness. And no matter how long we stood there, our eyes never got accustomed to the dark so that we could see anything. It was pitch black and no matter how long one might stand there, it will stay just like that. After we had stood there a while, the tour guide turned on a flashlight. And not one person in that cave said, “Where’s the light? Where’s the light?” When that flashlight went on, everybody knew the light was on. Nobody said, “Hey, look over there; there’s the light.” If you lit a match in that place, everyone would have seen that match. Nobody had to point out the light. But do you know what John came to do? He came to point out light to people living in blackness. So that begs the question, “Who needs light pointed out to them?”

There’s only one kind of person who needs to be pointed to the light. What kind? Blind people. And do you know what? Everyone in this world is blind. 2 Cor. 4:3 says, “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.” Now here comes verse 4; watch this truth: “in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

That’s why Satan blinded them; so that they can’t see the light, and so God’s pastors and evangelists and proclaimers of His truth have to come along and say, “Look! Take my hand and let me show you the Light.” It’s pathetic that the sin darkened world hasn’t even got the sight to see the light. This is one reason why the apostle John includes the story of the blind man who Jesus healed in John 9. He was a blind man who could see the Light, and the unbelieving Pharisees were men who could physically see but were spiritually blind and missed the Light.

All unbelievers are like those fish in Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico that have been underground so long that their eyes are gone and all they have are empty sockets. Someone can turn the light on, but they can’t see it anyway. And so the Light came, blazing the brilliant, glorious Light of God into this world, and people couldn’t see it because they were blind and John the Baptist had to be the first one to take them by the hand and say, “There’s the Light.” And even then, it is only those who God heals their spiritual eyes and gives them the ability to see the true Light who will be saved.

This is what every preacher of God’s truth who has ever lived does. This is what you do when you witness to others about Christ. Our task as Christians, as witnesses, is to take people by the hand in their blindness, as they stumble around in darkness and show them the Light, because they can’t see it. And then it is God’s responsibility to open the spiritual eyes of those whom He has chosen from before the foundations of the world so that they see that Light. 

During this Easter season, when men and women are more aware of the origin of Easter, take opportunities—as God provides them—to lead people to the true Light that enlightens every man.

Does Love Win or Does the Truth Lose?

by Bruce Mills

For all of those out there who have heard of Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins, and wonder whether or not it is worth the money to buy it and the time to read it, here is a thorough analysis and explanation of the book and the theological basis behind it from the pen of Dr. Al Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  There is no way that I could write as well or as thoroughly as Dr. Mohler, so I am posting this link to his blog post on this highly publicized book which is creating so much stir in evangelical circles. http://bit.ly/h43YSC

Why Five Smooth Stones?

by Bruce Mills

I recently received a question from a friend who told me that another individual had told him that he had learned why David chose five smooth stones when he prepared to fight Goliath.  The individual went on to tell my friend an interesting story that was alleged to answer why David did such.  My friend commented to me that he could find no support for the story he was told, but wanted to know if I could tell him whether or not there was any theological significance regarding David’s selection.

My observation through the years is that there are a lot of people who seek to explain every detail in Scripture with a novel interpretation or explanation that will somehow make those details seem to be theologically significant.  I don’t deny that when the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures, every word was inspired and included for a reason.  However, I do not believe that there is some grandiose explanation for each of those details. 

Let me explain.  There is a lot of speculation over why David chose five stones.  Some of the explanations defy any reason or logic.  For example, one writer says they stand for faith, obedience, service, prayer, and the Holy Spirit.  The writer argues that the stones represent those characteristics because David displayed those traits in his life.  Hogwash!  David may have displayed such characteristics, but to state that the stones represent those characteristics is an exotic view and stretches the rules of biblical interpretation to the breaking point. 

A far more common explanation (which might be considered the traditional explanation) is an anecdotal story based on 1 Samuel 21:18-22, which makes an assumption that David knew Goliath had four brothers and was prepared to fight them once he defeated Goliath.  However, the problem with that assumption is that there is absolutely NOTHING in the story of David and Goliath found in 1 Samuel 17 that tells us that David knew Goliath had four brothers.  In fact, the details of the story seem to argue that David knew nothing about Goliath except that he was challenging and insulting the God of Israel and David was indignant that anyone would do such.  As one reads the story, David is seen asking questions to learn what is going on and what the plans are to deal with Goliath.  Remember, David was the youngest son who was left at home to tend the sheep while his older brothers went to war.  His father sent him to see his brothers to take food to them and determine how they were doing.  So David would have had no idea about Goliath or his family history at the time he arrived on the scene.

I think that rather than trying to find novel explanations for vague details such as the five stones, we need to notice the big contrast between David’s display of complete trust in Yahweh to defeat Israel’s enemy, and Saul’s dismay and complete lack of trust in God to deliver Israel.  There is also contrast of David choosing to trust God to give victory by using a shepherd’s sling, a weapon which no one would have ever considered the appropriate weapon to fight a giant, rather than trusting in man’s wisdom and methods, as seen in Saul’s offer to David to wear his armor.  That is a key point in the story—David’s trust in Yahweh rather than man’s wisdom.

When I attended seminary, I encountered many other guys who were always seeking to find novel explanations for such details in stories, but unless it is possible to back up an explanation with Scripture that is clear and unequivocal, we need to be very careful about being dogmatic about such explanations.  Many people do the same thing with types in the Old Testament.  Some people will see a type of Christ in every event and story in the Old Testament, but to do so they have to abandon the literal-historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation for an allegorical method of interpretation which is speculative at best.  So my position is that unless a type is clear and unequivocal, supported by Scripture and the overwhelming body of orthodox, historical theology, I do not give them much credence.

My advice is that when you are dealing with narrative passages in the Bible, particularly those in the Old Testament, don’t bother yourself with concerns about highly speculative, exotic explanations for details such as the five smooth stones, but rather focus on those details of which the meaning is clearly evident.

So why did David choose five smooth stones?  Perhaps the simplest explanation is the best.  He was prepared and ready to reload again and again and again.  If he missed, he would run while reloading and fire again.  David was simply going into the fight with Goliath as prepared as possible, using the skills God had given him with a shepherd’s sling.  David was righteously indignant at Goliath’s insults against the name of Yahweh and was willing to defend that Name at any cost. He demonstrated his complete trust and reliance upon God for victory, and God demonstrated that David’s faith and trust in Him was well-founded.

Lessons in God’s Sovereignty from a Little Girl

by Bruce Mills

I have been studying and teaching on the life of Elisha, the Old Testament prophet.  I have arrived at 2 Kings 5 which records the story of the healing of Naaman the leprous Aramean (Syrian) military commander.  As I began studying the story, I encountered one of the characters in the story who I have never heard anyone talk about to any significant degree, yet this person plays a significant role in the story. This person is found in 2 Kings 5:2 and it is the unnamed little Jewish slave girl who informs Naaman’s wife about Elisha being able to heal Naaman of his leprosy.  She had been taken captive during one of the many raids which the Arameans had carried out against Israel. She was selected to be the slave girl in waiting for Mrs. Naaman.

Now think about this. Here we have an incredible story of God’s sovereignty at work. This little girl had been forcibly taken away from her home and her parents and forced to work as a slave for the top military commander’s wife in a foreign land. Who knows—perhaps her parents were even killed by the Aramean raiders when they went pillaging through Israel and captured her! So she had, at a very young age, become a slave. The text doesn’t tell us how old she was when she was taken captive, but she was probably there for at least a year or two because she had apparently learned the Aramean language, as she was able to express to her captors the information about Elisha.

Here we have God’s sovereignty at work again in what seems to us to be a negative manner. After all, God could have protected this little girl from being captured and carried away from her parents and put into service as a slave in Naaman’s household. But He didn’t. He let her be captured and hauled away. He certainly doesn’t seem like a God of mercy and love when you look at it that way. But God doesn’t look at things like we do (cf. Isaiah 55:9). Her story is very similar to that of Joseph, whose brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt, and years later when he has risen to be the prime minister of Egypt, he is reunited with his brothers and tells them, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive” (Gen. 50:20).

So here is this little girl—young, far from home, enslaved to serve Naaman’s wife—and yet she maintains a positive attitude of humble submission to those over her. This is seen in her statement to Naaman’s wife regarding Naaman’s leprosy. She says, “I wish that my master were with the prophet who is in Samaria! Then he would cure him of his leprosy” (2 Kings 5:3).

Now you might think, “Hmm, I’ve never heard of someone who had been captured and enslaved, speak with such thoughtful, kind terms about her captors. Instead of saying, “I wish my master would die of his disease. After all, he deserves to, since he snatched me away from my home and made me a slave. I wish God would help me escape and get back home to my family,” she says, “I wish that my master were with the prophet who is in Samaria! Then he would cure him of his leprosy.”

This is clearly the work of God in her life. She had a positive attitude despite her circumstances. She cared for her master and had his best interest at heart. There is no hint of dissatisfaction or discontent with her situation in life. Even at her young age, there was a maturity beyond her years in terms of understanding that God had sovereignly placed her in her circumstances and had a purpose in doing so.

Now, someone might argue, “Well, perhaps her circumstances in Syria as Naaman’s slave were better than her family’s circumstances back in Israel. Maybe that’s why she didn’t complain.” I will admit that it is certainly possible that her circumstances as a slave may have been better than her life had been back in Israel, but it is also true that in general the circumstances of the average African slave here in America in the 1800s was better than the average African living in Nigeria at that time. Yet those slaves yearned and longed for freedom from their slavemasters. You see, when you take away a person’s freedom, it doesn’t matter how much better their circumstances may be. Apart from an understanding of God’s sovereign work in their lives, they will rebel against that slavery; if not outwardly, at least internally. Yet in this young girl’s words we see the desire of her heart that her master would be healed by God’s prophet Elisha back in Samaria. No complaining about her own situation; just concern for her master’s situation.

Iinterestingly, this story doesn’t have a Hollywood happy ending for this little girl. There is no reward of freedom for her after Naaman is healed. We would like for there to be a verse thrown in somewhere in the chapter which tells us that when Naaman got home, he set the little girl free and sent her home to live with her parents back in Israel. After all, she is the one who brought up the possibility of Elisha healing Naaman, but after verse 4, this little girl is never mentioned again in the story. She may have spent the rest of her life as a slave, working for Naaman’s wife.

What this teaches us is the need to be content in our circumstances, because they may never change. In fact, they may even get worse from a human perspective. But no matter what happens, we must rest in the truth of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. Do you remember what Paul said in Phil. 4:11-12? He wrote: “Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.” The writer of Hebrews instructs us, “Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, ‘I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you’” (13:5).

Far too often we behave sinfully when the providence of God goes against our will and we find that God has placed us in situations which we hate and dislike. But God is trustworthy to stand with us in those difficult circumstances, no matter what they may be. He promises to never desert us or forsake us (Hebrews 13:5), so it doesn’t matter how bad our circumstances may be, He has promised to be with us every step of the way. Therefore, we can be content in that situation, knowing that God is in control and will not permit us to suffer more than we are able to endure.

In this case, God intended and sovereignly placed that little girl in Naaman’s household so that He could use her as the link in the chain that led to the healing of Naaman’s leprosy and the magnification of God’s glory as He is seen reaching out to the Gentiles and providing cleansing and salvation from the awful condition of sin. What tremendously important lessons about how to respond to the seemingly negative circumstances of our lives we can learn from this young unnamed slave girl.  The next time you begin to complain about your particular situation, remember that God has sovereignly placed you in that situation, and He has done so for His glory and your good.

A Lesson in True Integrity

by Bruce Mills

In the movie “The Legend of Bagger Vance” released in 2000, Matt Damon plays Rannulph Junuh, a former golfing great. One of the final scenes of the movie demonstrates personal character and integrity in a way rarely seen in today’s secular films.

Junuh, who has been greatly impacted by his experiences in World War I, is living as an alcoholic bum until Bagger Vance becomes his caddy and helps him regain his golf swing as well as teaching him several important life lessons. Once Bagger sees that Junuh has learned those lessons, he disappears from the scene and a young boy named Hardy takes his place as Junuh’s caddy.

At the end of the movie, Junuh is playing in a two-day tournament against Bobby Jones and Walter Hagen, two of the greatest golfers to ever pick up a club. On the final hole of the match, the three golfing rivals are all neck and neck. Junuh is preparing to chip onto the green when he reaches down to remove a twig from beside his ball. As he picks up the twig his ball moves slightly. The young caddy Hardy was the only one to witness the ball move.

Junuh reveals tremendous courage as he admits, “The ball moved.”

Hardy immediately begs him not to say anything, as he is sure it would mean defeat. Hardy tells him, “No one saw it move but me and you. I promise I will never tell. No one will ever know.”

Junuh displays even more resolve and courage as he instructs Hardy, “I’ll know and you will know.”

Naturally, the movie ends happier than we can always expect in real life, but the message is clear that our response should be the same regardless of the outcome. Many times in life—whether at work, school, home, or in the marketplaces of our society—we have opportunities to cut corners or get ahead because our actions go unnoticed, but to live a life of integrity requires faithfulness in the small things. If we don’t practice our integrity when alone, we will be less likely to do the right thing when someone else is watching.

Jesus said it best in Luke 16:10, “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.” What about in your workplace, classroom, or home? Have you had any balls move lately that you haven’t told anyone about? Do what is right even when no one else is doing it, and never do wrong, even when everyone else is doing it.